Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Prasanna Radha Krishnan Versus Income-Tax Officer

2016 (11) TMI 721 - KERALA HIGH COURT

TDS u/s 194C - status of sub-contractor - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Tribunal came to a finding that Sri Suresh is a sub-contractor of the assessee. This factual finding of the Tribunal is based on its findings that lump sum payments were made by the assessee to Suresh and that Suresh was entirely responsible for transportation without even accounting to the assessee the expenses incurred by him for discharge of the transportation work. The Tribunal further found that if Suresh was her e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is not perverse to be interfered in an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Once we accept the status of Sri Suresh as a sub-contractor, the liability under section 194C is automatically attracted. Admittedly, the assessee has not effected deduction under the said section. Consequence thereof is disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. - Decided against assessee - I. T. A. No. 28 of 2015 - Dated:- 18-7-2016 - Antony Dominic And Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ. For the Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de by the assessee to one Suresh, who was found to be a sub-contractor, the amounts paid were disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the contention of the assessee that Sri. Suresh was only an employee and not a sub-contractor for transportation of the liquefied petroleum gas manufactured and marketed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited whose distributor is the assessee. 2. In his order, the Commissione .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It is this order, which is under challenge before us. 3. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. 4. The question of law that is framed for our consideration is whether the Tribunal ought to have held that the appellant is not liable to deduct tax under section 194C and whether the Tribunal should have deleted the addition of income on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version